Judgment:
Criminal Misc.No.M-8488 of 2014 /1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M-8488 of 2014 Date of Decision: June 30, 2014 Rakesh .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Present Mr.RS Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr.Manish Bansal, Advocate for the complainant. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
This order shall dispose of the present petition preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.520 dated 29.9.2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Sector 10, District Gurgaon.
2. Counsel for the parties have been heard.
3. The FIR in question was registered on the statement of Bhupinder @ Situ who was stated to be a property dealer. The date of occurrence is alleged to be 28.9.2013 when at about Malik Sushama Rani 2014.07.01 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc.No.M-8488 of 2014 /2/ 8.30/9.00 p.m., complainant Bhupinder was stated to be going with his friend Manish on a motor cycle from his village Hayatpur to Gurgaon. At that point of time, some police officials in civil dress were making enquiries as regards the address of certain persons of village Hayatpur and as such, the complainant as also his friend Manish who was driving the motor cycle, was stopped by such police party. It is further stated that one white Alto car came, which was also signalled to stop, but the same fled away. The police party started chasing the vehicle and the complainant as also his friend Manish also started chasing the car on their motor cycle. The Alto car was stated to have stopped in the street leading to the house of Rakesh i.e. the present petitioner/accused. Some boys are stated to have alighted from the car. Meanwhile, the police officials started making enquiries and the allegation is that upon seeing the present petitioner, Rakesh started hurling abuses upon which the police officials stopped him and thereafter left the place. Further allegation is that as soon as the police officials had made an exit, the present petitioner called out certain persons from his house, namely, Bhartu Harijan, son of Bhartu, grand-son of Bhartu, Kala son of Bir Singh Harijan, Sandeep son of Bhagat Harijan. All these persons were armed with lathies, dandas and iron rods. The present petitioner is stated to have given an iron rod blow on the head of the complainant with an intention to kill him. Furthermore, the present petitioner is stated to have fired a shot with a country made pistol and thereafter had thrown the pistol and magazine near the complainant and had proclaimed that he would state to Malik Sushama Rani 2014.07.01 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc.No.M-8488 of 2014 /3/ the police that the pistol belonged to the complainant himself.
4. It has gone uncontroverted that earlier in point of time, FIR No.478 dated 11.9.2013 had been registered against the complainant, namely, Bhupinder at the instance of the present petitioner. In such FIR, Bhupinder had been granted the concession of anticipatory bail. Under such circumstances, false implication of the present petitioner and the present FIR being a mere counter-blast to the earlier FIR cannot be ruled out. That apart, the question as to whether offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code having been made out against the petitioner would be a moot point to be taken into consideration during the course of trial.
5. Learned State counsel apprises the Court that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.10.2013. Investigation in the case having been completed, the challan stands presented on 28.11.2013. Learned State counsel further informs the Court that out of 20 prosecution witnesses cited, nine have been examined till date. The trial, as such, shall take some time to conclude.
6. It is also not controverted that co-accused Bhartu and Ajay Kumar have been granted the benefit of regular bail by this Court on 9.1.2014 and 13.2.2014 in Crl.Misc.No.M-43629 of 2013 and Crl.Misc.No.M-4119 of 2014 respectively.
7. In the totality of the circumstances noticed hereinabove and keeping in view the length of incarceration already suffered by the petitioner and without making any observation on merits, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail. Malik Sushama Rani 2014.07.01 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc.No.M-8488 of 2014 /4/ 8. Petition allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of trial Court.
9. Disposed of. ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) June 30, 2014 JUDGE SRM Malik Sushama Rani 2014.07.01 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document